Mervyn Storey
North Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for his statement. It will be noted that there are those who cry much about the environment and purport to be the champions of the environment who did not have the courtesy to come to the House and be present when the statement was being made.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Clearly, there are some in the House who want to continue with the same old, same old and get the same outcomes at a huge cost to the public purse and to farms in Northern Ireland. The Minister is absolutely right: it is a scourge.”
“I am sure that the Minister will be aware, having listened to the Member who spoke before me, that the farmers of North Antrim will make an informed choice about who best supported farmers during this mandate of the Assembly.”
“A pilot scheme has been operating with the Education Authority, the PSNI and the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust across 60 schools in the south Down area since September 2021 and was extended to a further 77 schools in the Newry and south Armagh areas at the start of February 2022.”
“As Chair of the Justice Committee, I am pleased to welcome the motion. It implements the provisions taken forward by the Committee in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 to establish an Operation Encompass model in Northern Ireland, which is, as the Minister has outlined, a police and early intervention pa…”
“We had our final meeting of that Committee this morning, and I want to place on the public record our appreciation and thanks to our Committee staff of for all the work that they have done.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,983 lines we hold for Mervyn Storey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 48 of 60.
“Yes, in a moment. <BR /> <BR />Therefore, I urge that that is the context in which we interpret the sanction regime as it is outlined in the Bill.”
“When we pick out one particular element, whether it is the removal of clause 112 or any of the other elements in relation to the time of sanctions, I still believe that, in the round, they are necessary to deter the minority of claimants who might wish to break the rules —”
“By inference, we would then draw the conclusion that that comfort to enforcement is no longer there. <BR /> <BR />Mr Agnew, following the comments made by the Member for North Antrim, accused the Department of having sanctions that were incredibly punitive, and we found ourselves in a situation where we were endeavouring — despite using the words earlier on of being tough, which, I know caused some concern to Mr Attwood — to try to strike a balance. It is a very, very difficult balance to strike. I will come on to the point that Mr McCrea made about the issue of sanctions and how beneficial they are. I still believe that, although these measures are tough, the other issue is that they are fair and necessary if you take them in the round.”
“The decisions will be overturned if the tribunal finds that the sanction should not have been imposed because the claimant had good reason for failing to meet the requirement. <BR /> <BR />I am endeavouring to assure Members that there will be in place a structure that tries to deal with all those eventualities. I trust that that is helpful and that that is the way that it will be put into operation. I want to come to that point when I address the issues that were raised by Mr McCrea, but I also want to come to the point that was made by the Member for North Antrim Mr Allister when he referred to the issue of clause 112. He said that when that was originally in the Bill, it was a comfort to enforcement. I think that that was the point that the Member was making.”
“If the job was not in line with any work restrictions, the claimant would have good reason for any failure. <BR /> <BR />We will not impose a sanction if a claimant has good reason for failing to meet requirements. Claimants have five working days to provide evidence of good reason. Before imposing a sanction, we will continue to visit claimants with limited capability for work who have a mental-health condition or a learning disability to help us to understand why the claimant did not meet the requirement. That will inform the decision on whether there was a good reason for the failure. In addition to the general safeguard of good reason, decisions to reduce benefit as a result of a sanction are subject to an appeal to an independent tribunal.”
“Higher-level sanctions will be applied only for failures to meet the most important requirements by claimants who are subject to all work-related requirements, for example, jobseekers. <BR /> <BR />There will also be a range of safeguards to protect claimants. Requirements will be reasonable, taking into account the claimant's circumstances and capability, including health conditions, disability and caring responsibilities. For example, a lone parent or lead carer with a child under 13 may be able to restrict their availability for work to jobs that can fit around school hours. An adviser should require a claimant to apply for, or accept, a job only if it is in line with the type of work that the claimant must be available for, including any restrictions that have been applied.”
“I, as Minister of this Department, do not want to have a situation where it can be said that something that we have done, or not done, has led to that. <BR /> <BR />I assure the House that a question could rightly be asked about the safeguards in the sanctioning process for vulnerable claimants. Claimants with both limited capability for work and limited capability for work-related activity, lone parents or lead nominated carers with a child under one year will not be subject to sanctions. Claimants with limited capability for work or work-related activity, lone parents or nominated carers with a child between one and five years will not be subjected to requirements that can lead to higher-level sanctions.”
“That list is not exhaustive. A good-reason decision is not directly appealable, but decisions to reduce benefit as a result of a sanction are subject to an appeal to an independent tribunal. Decisions will be overturned if the tribunal finds that the sanction should not have been imposed because the claimant had good reason for failing to meet the requirement. I trust that that helps with that issue. <BR /> <BR />Let me say that no one in this House should seek in any way to underestimate the seriousness of the point that Mr Attwood raised about the suicide rate in Northern Ireland. Some time ago, I visited a home in my constituency where that was the case, and I do not think that any of us realise where a family goes when they have had to deal with that issue.”
“I trust that that clarifies the issue. Maybe I did not make that clear. She also went on to talk about why "good reason" is not defined in the legislation and proposed a 15-day timescale to provide that good reason. In answer to that, the decision maker has the flexibility to consider all matters put forward by the claimant and decide, in light of all the evidence, whether or not the claimant has good reason. Examples of possible factors that might count as good reason are sincere religious or conscientious objection, travelling time, caring responsibilities, attendance at court, arranging or attending a funeral, domestic emergencies, emergency duties, or where continued participation would or was likely to have put their health and safety at risk.”
“Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, I suppose it is a combination of both. I want to make a serious point on the debate, discussion and negotiation on who will form the Government. My party will ensure that we play a full and very important role in the establishment of our national Government, should it come to that. <BR /> <BR />I will deal with amendment No 16. The key point, which will be reflected in guidance, is that the claimant always has the right amount of time. It is anticipated that the current rule of five working days should be the default but if, for example, the claimant is in attendance and has provided their evidence, there may be no need to wait a further five working days. Alternatively, if the claimant is waiting for evidence from a doctor or support worker, it is only reasonable to extend the period beyond five working days.”
“We could speculate all day, but there is an election in our kingdom — not the kingdom of Kerry, just in case anyone wants to be mischievous — it is the United Kingdom. There will be elections to our national Parliament on 7 May. We do not know what the outcome of that will be. I will be waiting as eagerly as anyone else, not only as a member of my party, which I have no doubt will have a good and successful election, but as the Minister for Social Development so that I can see what the implications of the new Government will be. I have no doubt that my party, with its strength, when coming to determine who is the Government on 8 May, will keep very much in mind the issues —”
“<BR /> <BR />I also want to deal with the issue that the Member raised on amendment No 16. This, again, is an area where Members do not have to take me on trust, because they will see all of this as we roll it out. Be assured, Members, that today does not finish the welfare reform process. I think that there are some Members sitting in their office who believe that, if only the Minister would hurry up so we get to the other two groups of amendments and get this done, somehow welfare reform will disappear into the mist. <BR /> <BR />There is a long process ahead of us in terms of guidance and a lot more work that has to be done. I think that we all remain committed to ensuring that we get to the end point. As the Member said, here is the unknown in all this.”
“<BR /> <BR />I now move on to the comments from Mr Attwood and his colleague Mrs Dolores Kelly, who raised an issue about the provision in clause 115. This clause removes references to a caution in section 5B of the Social Security Fraud Act (Northern Ireland) 2001. The effect will be that any person cautioned for an offence will no longer incur a loss of benefit under the legislation. The Department's response to the range of client behaviours is both proportionate and flexible. The scope goes from deciding that no formal sanction is appropriate to prosecution through the courts. On introduction of the provision, in an instance where a caution for a minor offence is administered, there will be no further loss of benefit. This is proportionate to the nature of the offence type. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the Member.”
“It is proposed that discretionary support will not be available to claimants who have been sanctioned. <BR /> <BR />I trust that that maybe convoluted answer gives some reassurance to the Member on that issue. I pay tribute to the Member for her work on the Social Development Committee. It has been helpful to have her experience there. While the Bill has gone through its various processes, it was valuable to have someone who has practical working experience as a constituent MLA. I can assure you that I found it a huge leap from the Back Benches to the Front Bench. However, the experience that we gain as MLAs in our constituencies stands us in good stead and allows us to be practical when we come to look at particular issues, especially those that are relevant to the introduction of welfare reform.”
“That would mean that, where the maximum amount is in payment, sanctions will not reduce the universal credit payments to below the household amount for children and housing. <BR /> <BR />If a claimant finds that they are experiencing financial difficulties and have immediate needs as the result of a sanction, they can apply for the hardship payment. Access to recoverable hardship payments will only be available when the daily reduction rate is equal to 100% of the standard allowance and not when the 40% reduction rate applies. That means that claimants with a 40% reduction in place will not have access to recoverable hardship payments. That aligns with the position under income support, where claimants have an equivalent 40% reduction and are unable to apply for hardship payments.”
“My colleague and member of the Social Development Committee Paula Bradley raised a question about claimants, the sanction regime and the provision for children and housing. It is right to set that in some context. Clause 26(6)(a) sets out that we will set out the sanctionable amount in regulations. The amount that will be sanctioned under universal credit will be a fixed amount that is broadly relevant to the amount that is sanctioned under the current out-of-work benefit system. For example, when a single claimant who is subject to all work-related requirements fails, without good reason, to meet their requirement, their universal credit will be reduced by an amount that is broadly relevant to their standard allowance amount of around £9 per day for the duration of the sanction.”
“It is important that I give some time to try to work through some of the comments. <BR /> <BR />I want to place on record a word of thanks to the Members who made comments. While other Members have not made comments, some comments have been made and I have had some discussions with other Members over the last number of weeks, as we have tried to work our way through the Bill. There were comments from Members of the Alliance Party today, which I welcome. It is also right of me to place on record the valuable contributions and constructive comments that were made by Mrs Cochrane about a number of things as we have sought to work our way through what is a complex and challenging piece of legislation. <BR /> <BR />I turn to some of the Members who made particular comments.”
“I have received messages from some of my colleagues to ensure that I do not stand for the next hour and a half answering the points raised. However, I am now on my feet. <BR /> <BR />I go back to the point that Mr McCrea made that the House needs to be assured that, in coming to the House as Minister, I feel the responsibility that I have been given, although I still have a lot of work to do to convince Mr Attwood that I am not an agent solely for DWP. It is not the case that I just blindly get up and say what has been given to me. That would be easy, but, as I said earlier, it is necessary to read into the record of the House things that I think are very important. That means that when Members want to rehearse something or see what things were said, it is on the record.”
“It is clear from the White Paper that the higher level of sanctions would apply only to claimants who are subject to all work-related requirements and have deliberately and repeatedly failed to meet them. The two key words in relation to avoidance are "deliberately and repeatedly". Obviously, I will set out in regulations where we are going with this, but I think that we need to keep those two words very clearly in our mind as we work through this.”
“Does the Member not accept that, when the decision maker seeks to establish whether a claimant had good reason to fail to meet the requirements — we need to keep going back to what the process is — they will take into account the customer's physical and mental health? Does that not give some reassurance — maybe it is even an incentive — that the concerns that are being raised are addressed in a way that is to the benefit of the individual?”
“That is where I come from as the Minister with responsibility in Northern Ireland. That is not to minimise the experience of other organisations in the rest of the United Kingdom.”
“Does the Member also accept that we have endeavoured to put in place a sanctions regime that reflects the situation in Northern Ireland? While I greatly respect the organisations and have met the Trussell Trust about food banks and the other organisations to which he referred, does he also accept — it follows on from Mr Swann's point about the committee that had been set up and the concerns that were raised by organisations in Northern Ireland that made representation to the all-party working group to the subcommittee that was established — that we have sought, specifically with reference to comments and concerns that were raised by organisations in Northern Ireland, which have helped to shape, reflect and mould what we have put into the Bill so that that gives us, yet again, a Northern Ireland version, which, for me, still remains, despite his concerns about the big hand of DWP controlling me from a distance.”
“<BR /> <BR />The report also recognises that the vast majority of claimants do the right thing, with 95% of claimants not sanctioned. The Government already has a robust system in place, and only around 13% of sanction decisions are changed on reconsideration or appeal. That gives a broader explanation of what Mr Oakley was saying in his report. I trust that that is more balanced than the particular narrative that the Member would like to write.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. This is where we all like to be selective when it suits us, depending on the argument that we are making. If you look at the entirety of what he went on to say, he acknowledged that sanctions have a vital role to play. He also made a series of recommendations that would help to encourage more claimants to do the right thing and help save taxpayers' money. Sanctions are applied as a last resort, when claimants fail to do enough to find work or attend appointments. Recent research shows that 72% of claimants say that they are more likely to follow the rules because of the threat of having payments stopped. That was the point that my colleague and good friend Mr Wilson was making.”
“The comments that he attributes to me — I did say those words — are not in any way a contradiction of my previous comments in the House over the last number of hours when I said that we must always remember that this is about people. We need a framework and a structure that tries, as well as it possibly can, to cover most of the eventualities that come as a result of having a system such as our current one.”
“I referred to this earlier, and, in fairness, the Member may not have been in the House. I want to dispense with the idea that I somehow constantly live in the shadow of DWP, but the reality for me, as Minister, is that I cannot ignore DWP or the House of Commons — nor would I want to — and the fact that we are part of the United Kingdom. I want to continue to have a working relationship with DWP, because it has had many good experiences. It has also had many difficulties and challenges. I also said that we need an effective sanctions system that encourages responsibility and deters non-compliance. I find myself in a situation in which there are those who make the allegation that, on one hand, we are going soft, but, on the other hand, we are then accused of not being compassionate enough; I made that reference earlier.”
“That is the important issue in relation to the experience that we have had following the Oakley report, and also in ensuring that claimants have the appropriate information.”
“The Government accepted all those recommendations. <BR /> <BR />The system for universal credit is clear. The claimants will be engaged from day one through the claimant interview and their claimant commitment, which will inform them about the sanction.”
“That recognised that, while welfare recipients are usually aware that the penalties are part of the system, they also have little knowledge of when they could be imposed or how they could be avoided or reversed, implying that claimants are often punished for a lack of understanding, rather than deliberate non-compliance. <BR /> <BR />In September 2013, the Department for Work and Pensions appointed Matthew Oakley, to whom reference was made yesterday. Mr Oakley made a few other telling comments, as well as those that the Member referred to. In his report, which was subsequently published in July 2014, he recommended that the focus should be on:”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Let me try to deal with a number of those points in the context of this issue. This question could rightly be asked: do we have any evidence that the new sanction regime will be more effective? Herein is one of the conundrums of this place. On one hand, we are getting beaten up — metaphorically, thankfully — because we are giving too much money to people. On the other hand, we are getting beaten up, metaphorically, because we are not giving enough. So, it is almost as though you can never win. <BR /> <BR />Let me refer the Member to the research that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation did in 2014.”
“<BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I add that the provision in the clause is subject to commencement by order. As a result, cautions will continue to trigger a potential loss of benefit until such time as my Department seeks commencement of the provision.”
“<BR /> <BR />Whilst it is my Department's policy to move away from cautions in future, I should add that, in some instances, the Public Prosecution Service may direct the Department, in the public interest, to offer a caution as an alternative to prosecution. On the introduction of the provision, in instances where a caution for a minor offence is administered, there will be no further loss of benefit. The provision, therefore, will provide an easement for the claimant in those circumstances, so it is proportionate to the nature of the offence. Successful opposition would remove the clause from the Bill, which, in effect, would mean that those offered a caution on a direction from the prosecutor will incur a loss of benefit as well. Therefore, I urge Members to reject that opposition.”
“It may be helpful if I start by explaining that clause 115 removes references to a caution in section 5B of the Social Security Fraud Act (Northern Ireland) 2001. The effect will be that any person cautioned for an offence will no longer incur a loss of benefit under the legislation. The wider policy intention is the Department's drive to deter the commission of fraud by either imposing its own financial penalties, which are known as administrative penalties, or by seeking a conviction through the courts. The clause, therefore, will provide the enabling power to no longer apply a loss of benefits to cautions, given the policy direction of moving away from cautions to financial penalties and/or convictions.”
“Therefore, I urge Members to support my proposal to remove clause 112.”
“<BR /> <BR />Clause 112 introduces a new civil penalty that can be imposed on those who negligently make incorrect statements or fail, without reasonable excuse, to advise the Department of a relevant change of circumstances, resulting in an overpayment. The motivation behind the measure is to change the behaviour of customers who do not give accurate information about their circumstances or report changes to those circumstances and carry on receiving benefit they are no longer entitled to. This is another area that concerns have been raised about. As part of the Stormont House Agreement, I propose to remove the clause from the Bill. In the event that the clause does not stand part of the Bill, as a consequence, amendment Nos 76 and 78 relating to repeals listed in schedule 12, which relate to clause 112, also need to be removed.”
“Where the penalty is offered, claimants will retain the right to seek independent legal advice and participate in a face-to-face interview. The offer of a penalty must be accepted in writing, and, once accepted, the additional cooling-off period applies, during which the person can reconsider their decision to accept the penalty and seek further independent legal advice. <BR /> <BR />As a result of concerns expressed as part of the Stormont House Agreement, I propose to remove the clause from the Bill. The outcome will be that there is no amendment to sections 109A and 109B of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, meaning that the cooling-off period will remain at 28 days. I therefore urge Members to support my proposal to remove clause 111.”
“<BR /> <BR />Clause 111 amends sections 109A(5) and 109B(6) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 to reduce the period during which the customer can withdraw agreement to pay an administrative penalty from 28 to 14 days. Administrative penalties can only be offered in cases where there are grounds to bring proceedings, and acceptance is on the basis that, by agreeing to pay the penalty, there will be no prosecution. Withdrawal of agreement means that, while the penalty need not be paid, the Department’s agreement not to prosecute will no longer stand. The repercussions of such a decision are important to the individual concerned, and we do not want people making the wrong decision because of the time factor.”
“I was not referring to the honourable Member and my good friend, Mr Wilson. That is the nature of the job. <BR /> <BR />I come to amendment No 26. As has been the case for amendments Nos 15 and 24, which I have already addressed, amendment No 26 would reduce the maximum sanction to 26 weeks. Once again, I highlight the fact that the sanctions are applied on a sliding scale of three, six and 18 months, and a claimant has to have failed to comply with a requirement on three separate occasions before an 18-month sanction would apply. I consider that 26 weeks as a maximum sanction is too lenient and therefore urge you to reject amendment No 26.”
“I think it will come as no surprise to the Member that nothing is a surprise to me. I have learnt that more and more in the last number of weeks, since taking up office. I now waken, with God's help and God's grace, every morning, and nothing that is said or done, not only by my political opponents but sometimes by my colleagues, surprises me. That is really the nature —”
“I will in a moment. I will seek clarity from the Deputy Speaker on whether he wishes me to continue to go through the other amendments and conclude on those. I just have a couple more comments to make. I will give way to the Member.”
“I think that that is the rationale that has been applied to try to get an agreed position that is not seen as being heavy-handed, but equally cannot be interpreted as a free-for-all with no penalties, and that you can do as you wish and no sanctions will follow.”
“<BR /> <BR />Many valid points were raised about people's concerns. On one hand, we are undoubtedly seen by some as being lenient. On the other hand, we are accused of being draconian. In fact, if I remember rightly, some of the comments made during the Committee for Social Development's inquiry into this, albeit that it was a long time in the distant past — maybe I am inaccurate, but the Member may not have been on the Committee at that time and came on to it only later — the phrase "draconian" was used by some. <BR /> <BR />The point I have been trying to make is that we still need to have tough, but fair, sanctions. That is what we need to try and reflect. The sanctions are still there, even though there has been an issue about moving from three years to 18 months.”
“As a member of the Committee for Social Development, you will be well aware that a number of organisations expressed concerns about the three-year period. I listened to those concerns. I also think that it is a reality that came about as a result of the Stormont House Agreement. There is no point saying otherwise. <BR /> <BR />I want to make this point because it is something that I have heard others say about the Bill: I do not think that any of us would want to bring this Bill, as it was in its entirety, to the House. If we had the freedom to bring our own Bill in the way that we believe completely reflects the needs of citizens in Northern Ireland, and if I were in government where it was the decision of one party, I have no doubt that the Bill would be different. It would have a different emphasis and focus.”
“<BR /> <BR />Clause 50 mirrors the work-related requirements and sanctions that apply to comparable claimants of universal credit. Amendment No 25 will therefore match the maximum sanction applicable under universal credit in clause 26 by reducing it from three years to 18 months. I therefore urge Members to accept amendment No 25.”
“We therefore need to ensure that the rules on claimant responsibilities that apply to contributory jobseeker's allowance are aligned with those for universal credit as far as possible. This is necessary for three reasons: first, to ensure that all claimants who are subject to work search and work availability requirements, whether they receive jobseeker's allowance or universal credit, are treated in a similar way; secondly, to smooth the transition where a claimant's time-limited contributory benefit ends and they become entitled to universal credit; and, finally, to avoid unnecessary complexity for jobs and benefits office and social security office staff by ensuring they can apply the same rules to people in similar circumstances.”
“I believe that, when viewed in this light, these admittedly tough but fair sanctions are necessary to deter the minority of claimants who might wish to break the rules, and I urge Members to accept amendment No 23. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 24 reduces the maximum sanction to 26 weeks. However, I previously mentioned that there is a sliding scale of three, six and 18 months, and the claimant would have failed to comply on three separate occasions before an 18-month sanction could even be considered. A maximum sanction of 26 weeks in these circumstances is too lenient. For this reason, I urge you to reject amendment No 24. <BR /> <BR />On amendment No 25; whilst income-based jobseeker's allowance will be replaced by universal credit, jobseeker's allowance will continue as a contributory benefit alongside universal credit.”
“As was the case with clause 26, which we have already mentioned, we want to create a clearer, stronger system that is easily understood by claimants and acts as a more effective deterrent to non-compliance. Higher-level sanctions will be imposed on claimants who fail to comply with their most important labour market requirements, such as applying for jobs. There will be a three-month sanction for a first failure, six months for a second, and, with my tabled amendment, 18 months for a third failure, rather than the three years outlined in the Bill. We do not expect many claimants to be sanctioned for 18 months, but it is important to include that option to deter serial non-compliance.”
“The key point, which will be reflected in guidance, is that the claimant always has a right amount of time. It is therefore anticipated that the current rule of five working days should be the default, but if, for example, the claimant is in attendance and has provided their evidence, there may be no need to wait a further five working days. Alternatively, if the claimant is waiting for evidence from a doctor or support worker, it is only reasonable to extend the five working days. In all circumstances, a sanction will not apply where good reason is demonstrated. In view of that, I urge Members to reject amendment No 16. <BR /> <BR />In relation to amendment No 23, clause 47 inserts legislative provision to provide for a reformed jobseeker’s allowance sanctions system.”
“Amendment No 15 seeks to reduce the maximum sanction to 26 weeks. Perhaps Members did not realise that there is a sliding scale of three, six and 18 months, as I have just explained. As the claimant would have failed to comply on three separate occasions before an 18-month sanction could be considered, I think that 26 weeks as a maximum sanction is too lenient and urge Members to reject amendment No 15. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 16 amends clause 27, which deals with other sanctions, and seeks to give a claimant a period of 15 days within which to provide good reason under any requirement within the clause. I should point out that there will be no specific time limit in universal credit regulations for good reason, therefore ensuring enough flexibility to adapt to the individual circumstances of a claimant.”
“These are clear sanctions that are critical to incentivize claimants to meet their responsibilities. Only in the most extreme cases of non-compliance will claimants face an 18-month sanction. In the example that I have given, the claimant would have to refuse another job or fail to meet another important requirement within 12 months of his second failure. Only then would an 18-month sanction be imposed. I believe that these are tough but fair sanctions and are necessary to deter the minority of claimants who might otherwise break the rules, and I therefore urge Members to accept amendment No 14.”